The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of an illegal alien on a technicality

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an illegal alien, concluding that they cannot be deported since they didn’t receive ” “a notice to appear” in a single document,” according to The Daily Wire

In their ruling, the majority of justices came to the conclusion that the federal government was required to send their “notice to appear” in order to trigger a “stop-time” rule which would prevent the illegal immigrant from being deported.

According to The Daily Wire, the “stop-time” rule was established under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and is only applicable to those present in the country unlawfully:

“The Act mandates that immigrants who are unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days but under 365 days must remain outside the United States for three years unless pardoned,” the law states.

“If they remain in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. However, if they return to the U.S. without the pardon, they must wait 10 years until they may apply for a waiver.”

The law boils down to the illegal alien’s time coming to a “stop” once he or she receives the “notice to appear” document that continues information about an immigration hearing with a date.

The vote was 6-3 with the majority decision was made up of Justices Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion, with liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer, and conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas agreeing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito signed onto it.

“At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion. “But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him.”